Happy Labor Day!
Friday’s questions are HERE. The answers follow today’s Honor Roll
Thanks to all who offered encouragement in Saturday’s race. It went well and the Clemson game was fantastic. Watching the Tigers “touch the rock” and run down the hill for the first time since last year’s national championship was electric. And we didn’t have bad seats:
- Matt Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
- Alberto Bernabe, Professor, John Marshall Law School
- Erik Braghirol, Esq.
- Andrew Costello, Leeds Brown
- Andrew Delaney, Martin & Associates
- Robert Grundstein
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
- Nicole Killoran, Professor, Legal Externship Coordinator, Vermont Law School
- Aileen Lachs, Mickenburg Dunn Lachs & Smith
- Levine & Thompson
- Jim McCauley, Legal Ethics Counsel, Virginia State Bar
- Lon McClintock
- Jeffrey Messina, Bergeron Paradis Fitpatrick
- Hal Miller, First American
- Herb Ogden, Esq.
- Kane Smart, Agency of Natura Resources, Office of General Counsel
The rules do not require lawyers to have succession plans. However, a comment to a particular rule suggests that it’s a violation for a sole practitioner not to have a plan that designates another lawyer to review the solo’s files and contact the solo’s clients in the event of the solo’s death, disability, or unavailability. It’s the rule on:
I used this question as a reminder following Hurricane Harvey. Remember – there are many ways in which a solo might become unavailable. Seminars often focus on the doom & gloom of death or disability. Yes, those things happen. But, if you’re traveling and a weather emergency keeps you from getting home for a few extra days, can your clients make it without you?
Valerie and Eddie divorced many years ago. Eddie is over a year in arrears on court-ordered spousal maintenance payments.
Valerie asks Lawyer to represent her in a motion to enforce the order. She cannot afford Lawyer’s fee and asks Lawyer to take the case on a contingent fee basis. Lawyer agrees. You may assume that Lawyer does not have any conflicts that prohibit Lawyer from representing Valerie.
Which is most accurate?
- A. If the contingent fee agreement is reasonable & reduced to writing, it does not violate the rules. V.R.Pr.C. 1.5(d)(1)(i)
- B. Lawyer has violated the rules. Contingent fees are banned in domestic cases.
- C. There will not be a violation unless or until Lawyer attempts to collect a contingent fee from Valerie.
- D. There is no violation because it was Valerie, the client, who proposed the contingent fee.
Here’s a very simple way to help provide access to legal services: the rules clearly allow contingent fees in certain post-judgment family cases. Rule 1.5(d)(1)(i) allows them in cases involving past due maintenance & property division, while subsection d(1)(ii) allows contingent fees, with court approval, when child support is past due.
DO NOT say to me “but Mike, I’ll never make a difference with access by taking a post-judgment spousal maintenance case on a contingent fee.” You will make a difference to that client. And, while this is likely best addressed in a blog of its own, my opinion is that, as a profession, we too often let perfect be the enemy of the good. Instead of forming commission after study commission after blue-ribbon commission, we should strive make a difference whenever and wherever we can, no matter how small “whenever and wherever” seems. Like to the one client who you represent on a contingent fee basis in a post-judgment matter where court-ordered spousal maintenance is past due.
Lawyer represents Organization. Lawyer leaves Organization for private practice.
True or false: Lawyer’s general knowledge of Organization’s practices and procedures ordinarily will preclude Lawyer from representing a party adverse to Organization.
False. See, V.R.Pr.C. 1.9, Comment . As Professor Alberto Bernabe puts it, “being familiar with the organization’s ‘playbook’ does not typically disqualify the lawyer.”
Rule 8.4 prohibits some types of conduct that do not involve the practice of law. Although it no longer appears in the text of the rule, what’s the 2-word term used to draw the distinction between non law-related conduct that violates the rules and non law-related conduct that does not? Conduct involving ” ________ ___________.”
“Moral Turpitude.” V.R.Pr.C. 8.4, Comment . A phrase that drove me nuts in the old days! Professor Bernabe has some great posts on the continued use of the phrase in the rules.
This is a fictional scenario. A prop device, if you will. Play along.
I received an ethics complaint from a woman complaining how her brother was treated in a criminal case. The thrust of her complaint was that her brother was framed for the murder of his best friend, Andy, who had just confessed to an affair with her brother’s “cheatin’ wife.”
Referring to her brother’s defense attorney, she wrote that her brother never should’ve “trusted his soul to no backwoods southern lawyer.” She alleged that the proceeding was “a make believe trial” and that the “judge in this town has got blood stains on his hands.”
Interestingly, her brother WAS framed! In fact, the sister is the one who did it! Not only did she admit to killing Andy, she wrote that her brother’s “cheatin’ wife had never left town and that’s one body that’ll never be found.” It’s the first complaint I’ve ever received in which the complainant confessed to a crime.
Anyhow, Vermont’s Professional Responsibility Program and Judicial Conduct Board don’t have jurisdiction over the defense attorney and judge.
Name the state to which I referred the complainant.
Georgia. The question refers to the AM smash The Night Light The Lights Went Out in Georgia. After Liza Minelli and Cher turned it down, one-hit wonder Vicki Lawrence took it to #1. As a few readers mentioned, once the title-line gets in your head, good luck getting it out.
Finally, Friday’s questions included a reference to Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye by The Irish Rovers. My apologies to the (several) readers who prefer The Dropkick Murphys’ version.